If the island were heavily populated prior to colonization, or even filled with Argentinians, it would make sense. But it was uninhabited before colonization, and they voted 96% in favor remaining a colony in 1986. The UK actually attempted to transfer the island to Argentina twice in the 20th century, but stopped because the Falkland islanders themselves hated the idea.
I think it’s pretty hard to argue that Argentina did anything but invade here, not liberate, given the disposition of the actual people who live there.
It was uninhabited before the French and Brits settled there, but soon the French and later the Brits were replaced with Spanish settlers. It had been a Spanish colony for decades before the British invaded and kicked the Spanish settlers out. Of course replacing the original inhabitants with you own works, it's the oldest trick in the book.
> the Falkland islanders themselves hated the idea.
Well apart from nationalism and resentment after the invasion joining Argentina is also a bad move in economic terms because it has a severe crisis every other decade.
I don't think you can ask them to join a country that does such a poor job managing itself and Argentina should focus on economic and legal stability before talking about it again.
Most of the time that the islands were inhabited the people that lived there were British.
While the Spanish hold no colonies in South America anymore, the British do.
The Argentines would have been the logical successors to the Spanish and Britain invaded Argentina as well.
It’s hard to find the good guys in this story but it would be really hard to the people that currently live on the islands to become part of Argentina